[achairapart]

What I do with the email is invisible to the sender and it's ok. It's actually the way it should be.

I clearly expressed interest in your newsletter by confirming the double opt-in.

It's also ok if I open your newsletter only once in a while, I may be busy, or I only want to read your content when its title click something in me.

The most successful newsletters respect this and did so for so many years. They never messed up with my subscription. I will never mark them as spam because I trust them. And there is a clear unsubscribe link in every one of them that I can click if I change my mind.

This is nothing new, Permission Marketing from Seth Godin is what, more than 20 years old now?

Instead, automation looks always fun and clever, until your growth-hack goes wrong.

[tomlagier]

This is a bit of confirmation bias, I think - successful newsletters have enough reputation that the reputation loss from low open rate or higher spam flag rate is offset.

Newer newsletters don't have that reputation, so they are more heavily penalized for low open rate or higher spam flag rate. Thus, they need to react more quickly to users invisible actions or risk damaging their reputation. I don't think this is a growth hack, I think this is a necessary action as a new entrant in a very unforgiving space - see some stories upthread from legitimate newsletters.

While your actions are invisible to the sender, they are _not_ invisible to your email provider, and ultimately they are the ones who make reputation decisions that can destroy a newsletter.

[FlownScepter]

> Instead, automation looks always fun and clever, until your growth-hack goes wrong.

"We found we can increase the number of people subbing for the newsletter by skipping double opt in"

"Why are we getting so many spam flags?"

Because the increase you gained was all the people who didn't want it, cosmic brain. The people who wanted it already had it.